昨天公牛鹈鹕交易停摆，公牛、鹈鹕、Mirotic三方都各有考量 Mirotic想保有鸟权、鹈鹕不想要Mirotic下年的合约、公牛如果先执行了下季Mirotic的合 约，卖像可能会变差，然後拥有的权利相互牵制，觉得这例子蛮有趣的。 刚好看到这篇免费的上半篇解释这笔Mirotic交易的情况 分享给大家 有翻错指正一下 https://cleaningtheglass.com/missing-mirotic/ Missing Mirotic An explanation of the rules that have held up the Nikola Mirotic trade, with a discussion of what this tells us about the Pelicans' offseason plans and how they got to this point. JANUARY 31, 2018 News broke yesterday that the Pelicans and Bulls had agreed to a trade: New Orleans would receive Nikola Mirotic in exchange for Omer Asik and a future first round pick. And then news broke that, well, that wasn’t quite the story. 昨天的消息传出鹈鹕与公牛达成了一笔交易:鹈鹕以Asikc和未来首轮签换取Mirotic。 接着另一个消息传出，事情并不是这样。 Adrian Wojnarowski @wojespn New Orleans and Chicago had a deal for Nikola Mirotic, but it's fallen apart for now, league sources tell ESPN. Adrian Wojnarowski’s reporting of the deal reveals why: Mirotic signed a two-year deal with the Bulls in August that included a team option that’s subject to the NBA’s one-year Bird provision. For a trade to be completed, Mirotic would have to approve a deal that didn’ t include a guarantee on his 2018-19 salary. Chicago and New Orleans wouldn’ t need his permission if they elected to exercise his team option before completing the trade. So far, the Pelicans have resisted committing to that $12.5 million on next season’s payroll, league sources said. Adrian Wojnarowski的文章里面指出: Mirotic在8月与公牛签下2年合约，包含一年球队选择权，这是符合NBA的一年鸟权条款。 如果交易没有保障2018-19的薪资，必须取得Mirotic的同意才能完成交易。 假如完成交 易前，公牛和鹈鹕选择执行下季的球队选择权，他们就不需要Mirotic的同意。 消息指出 ，目前鹈鹕是拒绝承诺下季12.5M的薪资的。 In other words, the deal broke down for reasons related to the arcana of the Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA). To understand what happened, we need to quickly walk through some of the key points of the CBA. 换句话说，交易停摆与CBA协议中的秘密有关。 为了厘清发生什麽事，我们必需快速了解 一些CBA的关键要点。 The NBA’s salary cap is a “soft cap”, meaning there is a cap on team payroll but there are ways for teams to exceed this cap (called “exceptions” ). The most important of these exceptions is nicknamed the Bird exception (though the term “Bird” is never used in the actual CBA): a team can go over the cap without limit to re-sign one of their own players if they have his Bird rights. The rule was created to allow teams to keep their iconic stars even in the face of cap trouble (a notion that perhaps seems quaint in today’s culture of star movement) — that’s one theory for how the nickname originated, since in 1983, when the exception was introduced, the Celtics keeping Larry Bird would have been the perfect example of the need for such an exception to the cap. NBA的薪资上限是软上限，意思就是团队薪资有限制，但有方法可以超出限制(称为特例)。 这些条款中最重要的称为大鸟条款(虽然Bird这字从没在CBA中使用过):假如球队有球员的 鸟权，球队可以超过上限不受限制的签回他们自己的球员。 这项规则的制订，是为了让球 队能留下自己的看板球星，即使是遇到上限的问题(在现在球星转队的文化这想法或许看起 来来是过时的)，大鸟条款这个名称的来源，可以追溯到1983年的例子，赛尔提克需要特例 留下Larry Bird，使用了这条款。 Originally this Bird exception applied to all free agents. If the player ended the season on a team, that team had the right to exceed the salary cap to re-sign him. But teams found the loophole in this: sign another team’s player for a small contract that can fit under the cap for one season and then, when the season is over, use the Bird rights to re-sign them for much more money. 原来的大鸟条款是适用所有自由球员。 假如一名球员在一支球队结束赛季，球队有权利超 出薪资上限签回这名球员。 但是球队发现了条款的漏洞:先以符合低於薪资上限的小合约签 下其他队的球员一季，等到赛季结束，再以更高的薪资签回有鸟权的球员。 So the CBA was amended to close the loophole. To have full Bird rights on a player, a team must have had the player on their roster at some point in three consecutive seasons without that player changing teams as a free agent. (There are a lot of details to this rule. I refer you to the excellent and indispensable CBA FAQ by Larry Coon for all of the nitty-gritty.) And if the player is traded in that time, his Bird rights go with him. 所以CBA被修订以防止这个漏洞。 球队必须保持一个球员在球队的球员名单连三个赛季， 且球员没有以自由球员身份转队过，才会有鸟权。 如果球员这段时间被交易，鸟权会随着 球员转移。 Well, usually. There’s one specific case in which that doesn’t happen which is needed to completely close the “one-year contract” loophole: if a player is on a one-year deal and is traded, the Bird rights don’t transfer to the new team. If they did, it would allow for all sorts of sign-and-trade chicanery. 通常，鸟权转移不会发生在一个特别的情况(签一年合约且被交易)，这是彻底防止 "一年合约"的漏洞:如果一个有一年协议的球员且被交易，鸟权不会转移到新的球队 如果可以签一年合约且被交易，将会允许各种sign-and-trade的策略。 But that puts the player in an unfair position: his earning power could be severely curtailed. If a player’s team doesn’t have his Bird rights, a team can only use what’s called the Non-Bird exception to go over the cap and re-sign him. This allows them to give him at most 120% of his previous salary. If a player on a one-year deal was traded and went from Bird rights to Non-Bird rights it might take away the ability of one of his biggest suitors to pay him market value. 但这样会使球员处在一个不公平状况:球员的收入将会被大大的限缩。 如果一名球员的球 队没有球员的鸟权，球队在超过上限的情况下，只能用非鸟条款去签回球员。 非鸟条款准 许球队能给球员薪资，最多是上季薪资的120%。 如果一年合约的球员被交易，从鸟权变成 非鸟权，这可能夺走球员追求最大市场价值的权利。 A solution was developed: players in this situation would have the right to veto a deal that would cause them to lose their Bird rights. A team couldn’t forcibly trade them and strip them of those rights. 上述解决的方法被制定出来:球员在这种情况下有权去否决交易，因为交易将导致球员失去 鸟权。 球队不能强制交易球员且撤去球员的权利。 Got all of that? It’s just a glimpse into the layers upon layers of rules that make up the CBA, and the reasons for their existence. So what does this have to do with the Bulls and Pelicans? Nikola Mirotic re-signed with the Bulls this summer on a one-year deal with a team option. Since he’s played his whole career in Chicago, the Bulls have his full Bird rights. But since he’s on a one-year deal (option years are ignored for Bird rights calculations), he’d lose these Bird rights in a trade, and has the right to veto the deal. 那麽这跟公牛和鹈鹕有什麽关系? Mirotic夏季和公牛签下一份一年合约附带球队选择权， 因为Mirotic生涯都在芝加哥，公牛有他全额的鸟权。 但因为Mirotic是一年合约(鸟权计 算选择权年是不计的)，被交易Mirotic将失去鸟权，但他有权去否决交易。 That gives Mirotic control over the trade. If the option is picked up by the Bulls prior to the trade, Mirotic no longer has the right to veto since he’d be on a two-year deal and retain his Bird rights. So why don’t the Bulls just pick up the option and make the trade? According to Woj, because the Pelicans don’t want to make the deal if Mirotic is signed for next season. And *that’s* the fact that interests me the most here. 否决权让Mirotic可以控制交易。 如果公牛在交易前行使选择权，Mirotic就不再有权利否 决，因为他变成了两年合约且鸟权将会保留。 所以为什麽公牛不行使选择权然後交易他? 据Woj指出，如果Mirotic下季有合约，鹈鹕不 想达成这笔交易。 如果Mirotic要交易出去需符合其中一点 1.Mirotic同意以一年合约交易，但他明年没鸟权，未来薪资会减少。 2.公牛先执行明年选择权，然後交易对象愿接受明年Mirotic的合约。 --

※ 发信站: 批踢踢实业坊(ptt.cc), 来自: 1.165.81.204 ※ 文章网址: https://webptt.com/cn.aspx?n=bbs/ChicagoBulls/M.1517497691.A.910.html ※ 编辑: sbmylife (1.165.81.204), 02/01/2018 23:09:07 ※ 编辑: sbmylife (1.165.81.204), 02/02/2018 00:12:40